Arakhin 31b — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

another interpretation of their dispute, that of Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis, and of the dispute between the Mishna and the beraita concerning houses in walled cities:

everyone agrees—

both Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis, and both the Mishna and the beraita—

even one side involving interest

also

is forbidden.

Rather, in the beraita in which Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis dispute, it is speaking of a case where they stipulated at the outset that, if the seller redeems it within three years, the buyer will return to him the value of the produce that he ate, [and the lender requires the borrower first to repay the entire loan, before deducting for him the produce that he ate; and if he cannot repay everything, it will remain sunk in his possession—Tosafot Bava Metzia 63a], and this is interest on a hundred [dinars] to be returned,

and here

in the beraita

they disagree concerning interest on condition of returning: one

the first tanna

holds:

that even interest on condition of returning

is forbidden,

because at the time of eating he ate interest and transgressed a prohibition—Rashi, Bava Metzia 63a.

And the other,

Rabbi Judah,

holds:

interest on condition of returning

is permitted!

And regarding the Mishna and the beraita concerning houses in walled cities—where the interest is not on condition of returning, since if the seller redeems it, the buyer does not give him money for his dwelling in the house during that year—they dispute as follows: the tanna of the Mishna holds that there is not even one side involving interest here, since it came into the buyer’s possession by way of a sale and not by way of a loan. But the tanna of the beraita holds: ultimately, since this is interest if the seller redeems it, there is one side involving interest here, and therefore it is complete interest, except that the Torah permitted it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If the seller died, his son redeems it.”

And we raise an objection:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It might enter your mind—

if the Mishna had not stated that his son redeems it—

“And if a man sells”

[a dwelling-house of a walled city, and its redemption shall be, etc.]

the Merciful One said, and this

the son

did not sell,

and is not included in “its redemption shall be”; therefore

it informs us

the Mishna that the son redeems it. And the reason is:

“And its redemption shall be”—

the Torah did not write “he shall redeem it,” which would indicate that the one who sold is the one who shall redeem it—

in any event

it indicates, even through another, and that is the son, who did not sell, that its redemption shall be.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If the buyer died, it is redeemed from his son.”

And we raise an objection:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It might enter your mind—

if the Mishna had not stated that it is redeemed from his son—“And if it is not redeemed, etc., and the house shall stand, etc., permanently

“for the one who bought it,” the Merciful One said—

which indicates that it will become permanent for “the one who bought it” [if he does not redeem it within a year], and if he redeems it, he returns it, but one who did not buy it does not return it,

and this

the son

did not buy,

and we would say that he does not return it. Therefore

it informs us

the Mishna that it is redeemed even from his son, and the reason is:

“And its redemption shall be,” in any event,

which indicates even from another who did not buy it from him.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They count a year for him only from the time that he sold it.”

The Sages taught:

If it had been written in the Torah [“And if a man sells, etc., and if it is not redeemed”] “until the completion of

a year,”

and it had not been written “until the completion of a year for him,”

I would not know

what the law is when he sold it to the first, and the first then sold it to the second:

whether

they count

a year for the first,

so that after a year has elapsed from the homeowner’s sale to the first, he no longer redeems it,

whether

they count

a year for the second,

and until a year has elapsed from the second sale, in which the first buyer sold it to the second, the homeowner can redeem it.

When it says: “until the completion of a year for him”—

it refers to the first seller, about whom the verse spoke at the beginning of the passage—

you must say

that the

“year”

that the Torah mentioned is

for the first,

and not for the second.

And the question is asked: when the homeowner sold it to the first, and the first sold it to the second, and it was not redeemed until a year from the first sale had elapsed,

to whom

of the buyers

does the field become permanent

? Shall we say that once a year for the first has elapsed, the field becomes permanent only for the first buyer, so that the homeowner can no longer redeem it from him, but it does not become permanent for the second buyer—so that the first buyer cannot redeem it from the second buyer—until a year from the second sale has elapsed? Or shall we say that once a year for the first has elapsed, it becomes permanent for the second, and the first buyer cannot redeem it from the second buyer?

Rabbi Elazar says: for the first

who bought it, it

becomes permanent

after a year from the first sale has elapsed, and the first buyer redeems it from the second buyer.

Rabbi Yohanan said: for the second

who bought it, it

becomes permanent

after a year from the first sale has elapsed, and the first buyer does not redeem it from the second buyer.

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar,

the reason is understandable,

for according to him—

that is, with regard to the first one’s acquisition—

we count

since a year has elapsed only with regard to his acquisition; therefore it becomes permanent for him and not for the second buyer!

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, what is the reason?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: What did the first buyer sell

the buyer

to the second

who bought it from him?

Every right that would come into his possession ,

including the right of becoming permanent, he sold to the second, so that the second would stand in his place and it would become permanent for him [Rabbenu Gershom].

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: If one sold two houses of walled cities—

in a leap year, followed by a regular year—

one

of them he sold

on the fifteenth of the first Adar, and one

of them he sold

on the first of the second Adar: this

the second

that he sold to him

only on the first

of the second Adar, when the first day of Adar of the following year arrived—

which is a regular year—already

a year had elapsed for him,

since a full year from day to day had elapsed, from the first of Adar to the first of Adar.

But this,

the first,

that he sold to him

already

on the fifteenth of the first Adar, a year had not elapsed for him until the fifteenth of Adar of the following year,

even though there are thirteen months from the time of its sale. And the reason is that we count from day to day, from the fifteenth of Adar until the fifteenth of Adar.

And we challenge:

Ravina raised an objection to it: And let him say to him

the first buyer to the second buyer: How did the house become permanent for you before me, when

I preceded you in kindling the fire [I kindled a fire]—

[I used my house]—

before you

[before you], and how did it become permanent for me after you?!

And we answer:

Because he said to him,

the second buyer to the first buyer:

You—

who bought in the first Adar—

entered into the intercalation [you entered the intercalary month]! Therefore you will lose, since they expound “complete” to include the intercalary month,

[вступил в дополнительный месяц]! Поэтому ты проигрываешь, поскольку из слова «полный» выводят необходимость учитывать дополнительный месяц,

whereas I—

who bought in the second Adar—

did not enter into the intercalation [I did not enter the intercalary month]!

[не вступил в дополнительный месяц]!»

And Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: If two

firstborn

lambs were born to him—

in a leap year followed by a regular year—

one

was born

on the fifteenth of the first Adar, and one

was born

on the first of the second Adar: this,

the second,

that was born

only

on the first of the second Adar, when the first day of Adar of the following year arrived—

which is a regular year—

a year had elapsed for him,

and he is warned to offer it within its year, as it is written: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it [the firstborn] year by year.”

This that was born to him

already

on the fifteenth of the first Adar, a year had not elapsed for him—

so that he would already be obligated to offer it—

until the fifteenth of Adar of the following year.

35. Ravina raised an objection to it: And let it say to him

the lamb born first to the lamb born second:

I preceded you in eating vegetables [I preceded you in eating from the field’s vegetables]

[я первым начал есть полевую растительность]

before you, and how can a year be completed for you before me?!

так почему же твой год завершается раньше моего?!»

And we answer:

Because he said to him,

the lamb born second to the lamb born first:

You—

who were born in the first Adar—

entered into the intercalation [you entered the intercalary month]! Therefore your year will be completed only after thirteen months,

[вступил в дополнительный месяц]! Поэтому твой год завершится только через тринадцать месяцев.

whereas I—

who was born in the second Adar—

did not enter into the intercalation [I did not enter the intercalary month]!

[не вступил в дополнительный месяц]!»

And we raise an objection:

This further

[two statements]

why do I need it,

when Rabbi Abba bar Memel has already taught us something similar, concerning the year of houses in walled cities?

It is the same thing?!

And we answer: the principal novelty of Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s second statement is that even regarding the year of a firstborn, the intercalary month must be added, and therefore a year did not elapse for the first one until the fifteenth of Adar, and not on the fifteenth of Shevat, which is twelve months from the time he was born. And it is a novelty, for

it might enter your mind: there

in houses in walled cities,

since “complete” is written,

we derive from this that the intercalary month is added,

but here,

regarding a firstborn,

since “complete” is not written—

we will not

add the intercalary month at all.

It informs us

Rabbi Abba bar Memel that it is added, and the reason is:

that

[“you shall eat it]

year

by year,” stated regarding a firstborn, and “until the completion of a

year for him,”

stated regarding houses in walled cities,

are learned from one another [one is learned from the other] by a gzera shava. Just as in houses in walled cities the intercalary month is added, so too regarding a firstborn.

[они выводятся одно из другого]. И подобно тому, как в отношении домов в городах, окружённых стеной, добавляют дополнительный месяц, так добавляют его и в отношении первенца.

We learned in the Mishna:

“When it says ‘complete’

to include the intercalary month,

Rabbi says: to give him a year and an intercalation.”

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning houses in walled cities: “And if it is not redeemed until the completion of a

complete year.”

Rabbi says:

This teaches that he

counts three hundred and sixty-five days, corresponding to the number of days of

the

solar year,

and then “the house shall stand, etc., permanently.”

And the Sages say: He counts

only

twelve months from day to day,

as we establish them—when the month begins—so that they constitute a lunar year. And “complete” teaches:

and if the year is intercalated, for him—

for the seller—

it is intercalated, so that he can redeem it until the completion of thirteen months.

так что он может выкупить дом до истечения тринадцати месяцев.

We learned in the Mishna:

“When the twelfth month’s day arrived and it was not redeemed,”

it became permanent for him.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And if it is not redeemed, etc., and the house shall stand, etc., permanently, for the one who bought it, for his generations.” And they interpret:

“Permanently”

completely,

so that the field becomes permanent for the buyer.

Alternatively: “Permanently”—

to include a gift,

so that its law is like that of a sale of a house in the houses of walled cities.

And

what is the reason,

that is, how do we learn a gift from “permanently”? And we explain: it should have written

“permanent”,

but it wrote

“permanently”,

to include a gift.

The Rabbis stated this law—that a gift is like a sale concerning houses in walled cities—

этот закон — что подарок подобен покупке дома в городе, окружённом стеной, —

before Rav Pappa,

and they added:

According to whom

is this law?

Not according to Rabbi Meir! For if it is Rabbi Meir,

it is he who

said concerning the return at the Jubilee of an ancestral holding field:

относительно возвращения в юбилейный год наследственного владения:

a gift is not like a sale

that returns at the Jubilee.

He said

to them

Rav Pappa: Even if you say

that this law is like

Rabbi Meir, there is a distinction between houses in walled cities and an ancestral holding field,

for here it is different,

concerning houses in walled cities,

for the Merciful One expounded “permanently”,

to teach that a gift too is like a sale.

The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa—and some say Rav Huna son of Rav Joshua said to Rav Pappa,

and they challenged him:

But concerning the Jubilee

of an ancestral holding field,

as it is written:

In this year of the Jubilee,

“you shall return”

each man to his holding, and they expound: the Torah should have written “he shall return,” but it wrote “you shall return”—

to include a gift, and Rabbi Meir,

who holds that a gift is not like a sale,

does not include

a gift from this verse, because it does not seem proper to him to expound “he shall return—you shall return”; and likewise “permanent—permanently” does not seem proper to him to expound [Rabbenu Gershom]!

Rather, this is certainly

the one who includes a gift as a sale from “permanent—permanently”

is not according to Rabbi Meir!

The Sages taught: One who consecrates

for the upkeep of the Temple

a house among the houses of walled cities—this person redeems it immediately, and redeems it forever,

since it does not leave for the priests at the Jubilee like the consecration of an ancestral holding field [Rabbenu Gershom].

If another redeemed it immediately

from

the

consecration, that other’s law is like that of one who buys a house among the houses of walled cities: if

the twelfth month’s day arrived

from the time he bought it from the treasurer

and it was not redeemed

by the owners—from him

it was—

that is, it became—

permanent for him,

for the buyer.

And we explain:

From where are these matters?

Samuel said: For the verse says: “And the house shall stand, etc., permanently,

‘for the one who bought it,’”

and they expound:

even

for the one who bought it

directly from the consecration, it becomes permanent.

And we challenge:

Let it become permanent

even before another redeemed it,

the consecration

itself, so that after twelve months it would not be redeemed from the consecration [Rabbenu Gershom]; and why does it say “and redeems it forever”?

And we answer:

The verse says: “And the house shall stand, etc., permanently, for the one who bought it,”

“for his generations,”

to exclude:

the consecration has no generations,

and therefore it does not become permanent for the consecration.

It is written: “And the house shall stand, etc., permanently, for the one who bought it, for his generations,”

“It shall not leave at the Jubilee.”

And they ask:

Why do I need

“it shall not leave at the Jubilee” for the owners, since “permanently, for the one who bought it” has already been written?

And we explain:

Rav Safra said: It is necessary only for one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities, and the Jubilee encountered it within its year—

before it became permanent in the buyer’s possession—that it should not return to the owners at the Jubilee. Since it is within its year,

it might enter your mind to say that it leaves

[leaves]

at the Jubilee

and returns to the owners. Therefore

it informs us

the verse that even within its year

“it shall not leave at the Jubilee.”

Mishna:

Originally,

before Hillel’s enactment,

the buyer

of a house among the houses of walled cities

would hide on the day

on which the time from his purchase was completed

twelve months—

which is the final day on which the seller can redeem it from him against his will—

so that

the house would be

permanent for him.

Hillel enacted

that

it is sufficient for the seller

to place [cast]

[поместил]

his money

with which he wishes to redeem it

in the chamber

of the consecration in the courtyard, and thereby the house is redeemed.

And he shall break

the door

of his house that he sold to the buyer,

and enter. And whenever that one wishes

[the buyer],

he shall come and take his money

from the chamber.

Gemara:

Rava said: From Hillel’s enactment

it can be learned: that one who says to his wife

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz” -

and if you do not give, the bill of divorce will be annulled -

and she gave it to him

to the husband

with his consent

of the husband, this is giving and his condition has been fulfilled, and she is

divorced.

But if she threw the money into her husband’s house

against his will, she is not divorced,

for giving against his will is not called giving.